Case 4102180/2020 · Employment Tribunal
Mr A Stephen v Chivas Brothers Limited — 2020
- Case reference
- 4102180/2020
- Decision date
- 5 August 2020
- Jurisdiction
- Scotland
- Judge
- Employment Judge Hosie
- Venue
- Aberdeen
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Mr A Stephen
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningOn 5 August 2020 Employment Judge Hosie issued a judgment striking out the claimant's case against Chivas Brothers Limited under Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals Rules of Procedure 2013. The stated grounds were that the manner in which the proceedings had been conducted by or on behalf of the claimant was scandalous, unreasonable or vexatious under Rule 37(1)(b), and that the claim had not been actively pursued under Rule 37(1)(d).
The reasons record that, on 22 July 2020, the Tribunal gave the claimant until 29 July 2020 to provide written reasons why the claim should not be struck out, or to request a hearing to consider that issue. The claimant did not give an acceptable reason and did not request a hearing, so the Tribunal struck out the claim. No merits findings or monetary award were recorded in the judgment.
Claims and outcomes
1 finding recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Other | The extracted judgment does not specify the underlying merits claim type; it records that the claim was struck out under Rule 37. | Struck out | — | — |
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 37(1)(b)
- Rule 37(1)(d)
- Rule 37 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) Regulations 2013
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.